Bible search for websites

[Danny Carlton]

I started http://phpBible.org several years ago, for free, as a service for church and ministry web sites that wanted to provide a searcheable Bible on their site, but didn't want to have to always send people away to another site to use it. Currently there's about a dozen or so churches and ministries using it, much less than I thought, but it seems the headache of installing such a large database (the full text of the Bible plus two lexicons) was too daunting for many web masters.

Using Google Coop recently gave me an idea. I could use the same technique with a Bible search that Google was using to allow people customized searches on their own sites. The technique for doing it was something I had developed myself years ago, even before AJAX became popular.

I finally finished it and it's ready to go. I tried to make it as simple to install as possible. It takes just a few lines of code once you sign up, but it works great and even has the same Hebrew/Greek lexicon references available on words linked to Strong's Numbers.

If you want to check it out, you can find it at http://phpAV.com .

[flutem3]

Hi, Danny,

I just signed up for your Bible search. Now, I am waiting for the instructions. I am looking forward to seeing what you have devised for our members to use.

Thanks!

Carol

[flutem3]

Hi, Danny,

Can your Bible search be done in a version other that the King James Version, or is that the only one you can obtain complete copyrights on?

Carol

[Danny Carlton]

That's the only version I had any interest in working with. I've found other translation more error-prone that helpful, especially when people make the assumption that comparing translations helps them understand the verse better, It almost always muddies the message. All words linked to Strong's lexicon numbers are clickable, producing that entry in either Strong's concordance or the Internet Public Domain Lexicon (whichever the user has selected). That's a much better way of understandng passages than translation comparisons.

[MeanDean]

Hi Danny - I didn't see it on your page, but do you provide webservices?

For example, rather than hassle with the install and management of an entire Bible, currently I can leverage webservices offered by publishers such as:
the ESV Bible (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/share/services/) Web Services
the BibleGateway (http://www.biblegateway.com/usage/votd/docs/api.php) WebServices

For example, just last week I wrote and article (http://healyourchurchwebsite.com/2007/07/11/cleaning-up-the-biblegateway-soap-example/) on how to use the latter for their verse of the day installing nothing more than a reusable SOAP library for PHP.

If you offered a similar services for your search - perhaps in exchange for link attribution, etc - it might get broader adoption by more websites looking to incorporate Bible searches/resources for their users.

[Danny Carlton]

Hi Danny - I didn't see it on your page, but do you provide webservices?

For example, rather than hassle with the install and management of an entire Bible, currently I can leverage webservices offered by publishers such as:
the ESV Bible (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/share/services/) Web Services
the BibleGateway (http://www.biblegateway.com/usage/votd/docs/api.php) WebServices

For example, just last week I wrote and article (http://healyourchurchwebsite.com/2007/07/11/cleaning-up-the-biblegateway-soap-example/) on how to use the latter for their verse of the day installing nothing more than a reusable SOAP library for PHP.

If you offered a similar services for your search - perhaps in exchange for link attribution, etc - it might get broader adoption by more websites looking to incorporate Bible searches/resources for their users.
I've thought of that, but it's been a way down on my "to do" list. I have been trying to develop a daily Bible reading script for years, but can't find functional reading lists that I can incorporate into the script. The one I finally implimented, and use for my own daily Bible reading, is almost always off a few verses each day.

I also struggle between income and ministry. http://phpBible.org was and is a ministry. But my family is struggling financially and I am forced to set efforts like that aside so I can focus on income generating things. http://phpAV.com has the potential to provide income so I can justify the time on it to a degree. The problem now is that marketing and promotion without a budget is very hard. A "verse a day" would still need to be marketed, and it's not as easy as you'd think simply telling people. There are too many "salesmen" out there trying to do that with worthless stuff.

[flutem3]

That's the only version I had any interest in working with. I've found other translation more error-prone that helpful, especially when people make the assumption that comparing translations helps them understand the verse better, It almost always muddies the message. All words linked to Strong's lexicon numbers are clickable, producing that entry in either Strong's concordance or the Internet Public Domain Lexicon (whichever the user has selected). That's a much better way of understanding passages than translation comparisons.

Hi, Danny,

I read whatever I understand the best...sometimes it is one version; sometimes it will be another. Part of the selection of version depends upon where I am on my journey. One thing we all have to remember is that all versions and translations will have errors. We are not perfect people so the translations have made some changes over the years.

Now, if a person knows Greek and Hebrew, he/she will stand a better chance of understanding the Bible word for word. However, we will still be hard put to understand it in the context in which it was written. We live now and not then.

But these are not the important issues. The important issue is to read the Bible in whatever version a person will read. I don't particularly care for The Message. However, there are others who do. The main thing is for us to read the word of God, in my opinion...and this is only that...just one woman's opinion. :D That looks just like me except I wear glasses and have short gray hair. :-) Yes, my skin is green.

Carol

[Faithhb_lutheran]

Danny,

I would wager that your systems unpopularity has less to do with the technology and more to do with the bible translation the KJV (or NKJV), are not popular with the internet community. Also they are less accurate than the NIV or ESV. With the fact that the ESV provides the same service, I would say that your actions while noble may never receive the response you were hoping for.

[Danny Carlton]

Danny,

I would wager that your systems unpopularity has less to do with the technology and more to do with the bible translation the KJV (or NKJV), are not popular with the internet community. Also they are less accurate than the NIV or ESV. With the fact that the ESV provides the same service, I would say that your actions while noble may never receive the response you were hoping for.Actually the NIV and the ESV are horribly innacurate since they both rely heavily on the notoriously faulty Westcott/Hort Greek. While the ESV states it relies on Nestle and Aland's Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle and Aland is simply one of the versions derived from Westcott and Hort's criminally, sloppy translation. The ESV is not available in a search tool that begins and remains on your own web site. PhpAV (http://phpav.com) alone provides that service.

[flutem3]

"Actually the NIV and the ESV are horribly innacurate since they both rely heavily on the notoriously faulty Westcott/Hort Greek. While the ESV states it relies on Nestle and Aland's Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle and Aland is simply one of the versions derived from Westcott and Hort's criminally, sloppy translation. The ESV is not available in a search tool that begins and remains on your own web site. PhpAV (http://phpav.com/) alone provides that service."

Hi, Danny,

Now, I am 100% curious. How do you know the above? Where did you get your information? I am not a Bible scholar. I will be the first to admit that. I am a reader but not a scholar which is a different thing altogether.

However, I have never heard or read the above so, being who I am, I am curious about it. If this is the case, I don't understand why so many churches, including my own, shifted from the King James Version of the Bible.

Our pastor, for example, is a scholar as well as a pastor. He knows both Hebrew and Greek. But he seems to be at ease using a translation other than the King James Version. However, I am going to ask him as well. He is a splendid fellow, and I know I will get a cogent answer from him.

This is what is great about forums (actually fora- really actually, both). You never know what you are going to learn. What fun!!

Thanks, David, for making it possible.

Carol

[David Gillaspey]

Nestle and Aland is simply one of the versions derived from Westcott and Hort's criminally, sloppy translation. Danny,

Such comments are not helpful to this discussion. Please use constructive criticism only.

All:

Here is a objective, un-impassioned survey of Bible translations:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/versions.html

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey

[flutem3]

"http://www.bible-researcher.com/versions.html"

Hi, David,

What a terrific website! How did you ever find it! I appreciate your presenting it to us in your impeccable way. You have the knack, sir. I am glad you do. I tend to get "wrapped up" in a topic at times which is not particularly useful.

I will try to remember your method of guiding. It is very constructive indeed.

Thank you.

Carol

[Danny Carlton]

Nestle and Aland is simply one of the versions derived from Westcott and Hort's criminally, sloppy translation. Danny,

Such comments are not helpful to this discussion. Please use constructive criticism only.

All:

Here is a objective, un-impassioned survey of Bible translations:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/versions.html

Sincerely,

David GillaspeyAre you forbidding me from responding to flutem3's question? How is "constructive" defined? How was Faithhb_lutheran's comments "constructive" while mine were not? My choice was attacked with some perjoritive as well as false claims against the KJV. That's seems to have passed your "constructive" test. Yet mine didn't. Can you explain the nuances of this "discernment" about what is and isn't "constructive"?

The link you provided leads to a site with a very wide, yet shallow look at translations, focusing on a plethura of obscure translations in order to belittle the importance and historical place of any single one. I'd say it's more misleading that helpful.

Here is a link to a much more useful and indepth study of the issues surrounding the flaws in most modern translations, http://dannycarlton.net/kjvniv/

[David Gillaspey]

Are you forbidding me from responding to flutem3's question? How is "constructive" defined? How was Faithhb_lutheran's comments "constructive" while mine were not? My choice was attacked with some perjoritive as well as false claims against the KJV. That's seems to have passed your "constructive" test. Yet mine didn't. Can you explain the nuances of this "discernment" about what is and isn't "constructive"?Hi Danny,

Kyle (Faithhb_lutheran) stated

<< they are less accurate than the NIV or ESV.>>

You stated

<< NIV and the ESV are horribly innacurate >>

and

<< Westcott and Hort's criminally, sloppy translation. >>

Varying opinions are welcome. The language you used isn't. You're attacking.

If your passion for the KJV has led you to focus time and energy on developing a KJV only online resource -- then I applaud you. I hope you will succeed with it, especially financially.

However, members of this forum accept a wide range of Bible translations as their Bible of choice. You can debate the accuracy of Bible translations somewhere else, using the language quoted above. On this forum, stick with sharing your web design expertise. For that, we will all be appreciative.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey

[Faithhb_lutheran]

Danny,

I admire your passion for correct translation, unfortunately you have been misguided and your information is wrong. As David stated, and has done many times, the purpose of this forum is not to debate theology, if you would like to continue this discussion please feel free to message me. As for the ESV webservice, I don't see any advantage to your system, websites like biblegateway have more creditability than a small independent church, having the scripture piped in makes more sense, it reduces server problems for novice webmasters, has the support of a large organization, and with HTML, and javascript you can make it seem like people never left your site.

[Danny Carlton]

... As for the ESV webservice, I don't see any advantage to your system, websites like biblegateway have more creditability than a small independent church

The Bible is the Bible, why would the web site itself make it any more or less credible?

...having the scripture piped in makes more sense
I'm not sure what you're meaning by "piped in" but what my services offers is a Bible Search, on an individual or church website, with minimal skill required for installation. No other site offers that.

...it reduces server problems for novice webmasters, has the support of a large organization, and with HTML, and javascript you can make it seem like people never left your site.
That's exactly what I'm offering, and which no other site is offering. I'm not following your point which seems to be that I'm not offering it while others are.

[Faithhb_lutheran]

[quote=Faithhb_lutheran;4121] ... As for the ESV webservice, I don't see any advantage to your system, websites like biblegateway have more creditability than a small independent church


The Bible is the Bible, why would the web site itself make it any more or less credible?

The Word is always the Word, the bible is man's translation of the Word. And there have been a lot of bad translations over the years, people will lend more credence to translations picked by one of the largest biblical support groups in the world over a small church's pick.



...having the scripture piped in makes more sense


I'm not sure what you're meaning by "piped in" but what my services offers is a Bible Search, on an individual or church website, with minimal skill required for installation. No other site offers that.

by piping I mean pulled from someone elses server, if it all resides on the church's server and is used a lot it will eat up valuable badnwidth.

...it reduces server problems for novice webmasters, has the support of a large organization, and with HTML, and javascript you can make it seem like people never left your site.


That's exactly what I'm offering, and which no other site is offering. I'm not following your point which seems to be that I'm not offering it while others are.

your phpav seems to have the right idea, but with the multitude of technologies present on the web, a much larger organization will be able to supply it to more people faster and better. What is the use of your service? why is it important for people to search the bible from the church's site? and their are other products like yours.

[David Gillaspey]

That's exactly what I'm offering, and which no other site is offering. I'm not following your point which seems to be that I'm not offering it while others are.Hi Danny,

Sounds like we (the rest of us) need to actually try out your service, so we can properly speak about it from experience. I'll do that tomorrow on a test page on my site. I'll let you know what I think.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[David Gillaspey]

Hi Danny (and all),

I installed your application today. (Your site appeared to be down yesterday.) The test page is:

http://www.greatchurchwebsites.org/bible.php

It's very slick, and — just as you promised — easy to install. I also looked at the ESV web service (link provided by Kyle earlier). The information page about the ESV web service is so intimidating that I wouldn't even think of installing it.

Your (Danny's) search application when installed looks like this:

http://www.greatchurchwebsites.org/art/FORUM/bible_search1.jpg

(Installation consisted of copying and pasting a little bit of Javascript code.)

I did a search for John 3:16. (By the way, I also did a search for John3:16 and got no results. You need to anticipate such a user error; they will happen.) The result looks like this:

http://www.greatchurchwebsites.org/art/FORUM/bible_search2.jpg

First comment I would make is that the little ads are annoying. I'm not annoyed because you've included ads. I annoyed because they're ads that look like editorial. Make the ads look like ads.

Now folks (writing to all), what you can't see from the above screenshot is that if you mouse over key words in the Scripture text, the cursor turns to a hand (on the Macintosh, anyway). This indicates a link. (Danny, this is awfully subtle feedback, however; can you make the linked words red?) Click on the word "world," for example, and a popup window appears with lexicon (lexiconic?) information about the word. Here's the screenshot:

http://www.greatchurchwebsites.org/art/FORUM/bible_search3.jpg

So, I would say your application is pretty cool.

There remains, however, that problem with your choice of Bible translation. If you want your application to become more widely used, you'll have to provide the text in several other of the popular versions

http://christianity.about.com/od/practicaltools/a/translations.htm

regardless of your personal opinion about different translations. You need to think like a marketing professional for this purpose, not a Greek scholar.

Having said that, you won't actually be able to use other popular Bible translations. That's because the companies that hold the copyrights are unlikely to grant you permission to you use their material. They will grant this permission to larger companies, however. So, here's my suggestion: Patent or copyright your application, then license it to other organizations. One that comes to mind is Salem Communications,

http://www.salem.cc/

Otherwise, if you insist upon the application only be used for the one Bible translation that you accept as valid, then at least focus your marketing efforts on fundamentalist churches and denominations.

(One last point: on your site, if someone enters an incorrect user name or password, they just see a blank screen. You need to add an error page informing the user that they've entered incorrect information.)

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[Danny Carlton]

David, thanks for the review...

I did a search for John 3:16. (By the way, I also did a search for John3:16 and got no results. You need to anticipate such a user error; they will happen.) I tried to make that part as intuitive as I could. I allowed for as many mispellings as possible, but correcting for that was not something I included. I'll have to look t see if there's a way of detecting and correcting that kind of error.

First comment I would make is that the little ads are annoying. I'm not annoyed because you've included ads. I annoyed because they're ads that look like editorial. Make the ads look like ads.
Hm. I wanted to minimize the space used, but didn't expect they'd be seen as "editorial" comments. I may be able to include a small "ad" graphic on one side.

This indicates a link. (Danny, this is awfully subtle feedback, however; can you make the linked words red?)
If I could ever figure out how to do it without having to spend week working on it, I wanted to make Jesus' words red. But more apparent as links may be possible. That would be part of the CSS.


There remains, however, that problem with your choice of Bible translation....regardless of your personal opinion about different translations. You need to think like a marketing professional for this purpose, not a Greek scholar.
I've seen too many errors in almost every other translation, as well as the problems that come from people assuming accuracy can come from comparing translations rather than studying the word meaning in the original language. One thing I bring from the Bible is that compromise always precedes failure. Quality should never be sacrificed for marketing, because ultimately quality is the best marketing tool.

Having said that, you won't actually be able to use other popular Bible translations. That's because the companies that hold the copyrights are unlikely to grant you permission to you use their material.
Which is one of the problems I have with them. I can't imagine the arrogance of daring to claim ownership of God's word.
They will grant this permission to larger companies, however. So, here's my suggestion: Patent or copyright your application, then license it to other organizations.
I'm sure they'll copy it eventually and do their own, for now their focus is on traffic to their site, so this idea would run counter to that.

(One last point: on your site, if someone enters an incorrect user name or password, they just see a blank screen. You need to add an error page informing the user that they've entered incorrect information.)

I'll look in to it.

I, just today did a newer version that even simpler to install. Of the 60 or so people who've registered only a handful have installed it. It looks as if as easy as it is, even that's beyond most people. The newest version (offered along with the standard version) functions more like AJAX. It's not AJAX since the technology I use is something I developed long before AJAX was heard of. It runs within the single page and doesn't require a specific URL to go to. It also has a few limitation, but would work well for people who simply want a handy Bible search on their site. The standard version can be used with links so you can link to the actual passage you reference (2 Corinthian 10:4-6 (http://phpav.com/demo.html?keyword=2nd+Corinthians+10%3A4-6&search=Search&begin=0&section=0&lexicon=str&p_display=trad) for example) the simple version can't. For a working example see http://phpav.com/phpav_ez.html

[David Gillaspey]

Hi Danny,

<< One thing I bring from the Bible is that compromise always precedes failure. >>

The NIV is the best-selling English-language Bible translation. How do you explain that "failure"?

<< Quality should never be sacrificed for marketing, because ultimately quality is the best marketing tool. >>

Not when you're only one who sees the quality.

<< I can't imagine the arrogance of daring to claim ownership of God's word.
>>

They don't claim ownership of God's word. God's word was written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. It's their translation of God's word that's copyrighted.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey